| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the motion in the name of Secretary Sir George Young relating to the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.--[Mr. Peter Ainsworth.]
15 Oct 1996 : Column 693
Asylum (Designated Countries)
10.16 pm
The Minister of State, Home Office (Miss Ann Widdecombe): I beg to move,
- That the draft Asylum (Designated Countries of Destination and Designated Safe Third Countries) Order 1996, which was laid before this House on 14th October, be approved.
If such a limited time is in order, I am sure that the speed at which the order is to be dealt with will give rise to some concern. If it is in order, is there any way in which the business can be postponed for further consultation?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris):
The hon. Gentleman knows in his heart that it is perfectly in order and that his point of order was a matter of argument.
Miss Widdecombe:
I cannot resist commenting on what the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) attempted to pass as a point of order. The seven countries now listed were in fact proposed by the Secretary of State as long ago as December 1995, on Second Reading of the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996. The hon. Gentleman has therefore had plenty of time to work out what he wishes to say.
The order designates seven countries as safe countries of destination under schedule 2(5) to the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993 as substituted by the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996. The order also designates four countries as safe third countries under section 2 of the 1996 Act.
The effect of designating a country as a safe country of destination is that refused applications will normally attract the accelerated appeal procedure that already operates in certain other types of case. The designation of safe third countries has the effect of enabling an applicant for asylum who can be returned to a third country to be removed there without waiting for any appeal against the decision to consider his claim substantively.
Mr. Alex Carlile (Montgomery):
Will the Minister give way?
Miss Widdecombe:
It is somewhat early in my speech, but I will give way.
Mr. Carlile:
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way somewhat early. I should like her to deal with something in the order. Will she tell us whether the words in paragraph 2 of the order,
Miss Widdecombe:
The words "in general" mean exactly that: in general. We have repeatedly made the point that, even in those countries in which there is general safety, some people will have a well-founded fear of persecution. That is exactly why, as the hon. and learned Gentleman well knows, a small number of people qualify either for asylum or for exceptional leave to remain even in those countries that produce a very high percentage of rejections every year. I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman knows that, but had he waited he would have heard me repeat it.
In relation to both types of designation, the overall purpose is to enable asylum applications to be dealt with more speedily and effectively, without departing in any way from the principle that each case is to be considered on its individual merits and without detriment to the position of any genuine refugee.
The seven countries designated as safe countries of destination are Bulgaria, Cyprus, Ghana, India, Pakistan, Poland and Romania. Those are the same seven countries which, during Parliament's consideration of the Asylum and Immigration Bill, the Government stated were being considered as candidates for designation. We believe that each of those countries has functioning institutions, stability and pluralism in sufficient measure to support an assessment that the general level of risk to people living in the country is sufficiently low to warrant designation.
We have made available--I am sure that the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) will wish to read it--an explanatory note on the designation of the seven countries, in addition to background country assessments setting out the Government's view of the general conditions in each of them.
We have also made clear the three main criteria that must be met for us to consider designation appropriate. The first criterion is that there is, in general, no serious risk of persecution in that country or territory. The second criterion is that the number of asylum applications in the United Kingdom from its nationals is significant. The third is that a very high percentage of applications are refused on examination.
Mr. Max Madden (Bradford, West):
The Minister has mentioned the home country assessment. Will she say how long those documents have been in preparation? Will she confirm or deny that reputable human rights organisations based in this country have been consulted about the views on human rights--particularly in India and Pakistan--expressed in those documents?
Miss Widdecombe:
As I said in answer to an earlier intervention, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State mentioned the seven countries as long ago as December 1995. Obviously, it was open to people to make representations to us once those countries were mentioned. Some people did so, and I met a group about the issue of safety in Pakistan.
We have taken into account not only detailed information and deliberation by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, but a range of information from
other bodies such as the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and Amnesty International. The reports have had various times for preparation, according to which of the seven countries they dealt with, but they have been extremely detailed. They have not--if this is the question of the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden)--been rushed at the last minute. Full consideration has been given to the detail in those reports. If, when he has read them--he may already have done so as I know that he is very quick--the hon. Gentleman wishes to raise with me any particular issues relating to statements that we have made on those assessments, I shall be delighted to meet him or to engage in correspondence with him on those points.
Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent):
My hon. Friend will be aware that, in some of the countries that have been designated, the way in which the ruling party most commonly asserts a slight shift in its religious stance is to take it out on the Christian minority. Will she give an assurance that her Department and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office will be properly aware of the extraordinary vulnerability of Christians in Muslim countries which may suddenly wish to send a signal about being more or less fundamentalist, and do so by victimising Christian minorities?
Miss Widdecombe:
I can of course give my hon. Friend the assurance that we will make sure that we are aware of any minority who are suffering in any way. But when people apply to this country for asylum, as my hon. Friend well knows, we have to assess each individual case on its merits. We do not create classes of persons who are automatically entitled to asylum. Each case will have to be established on its merits.
Mr. Bernie Grant (Tottenham):
I thank the Minister for giving way. Is she aware of the recent heightened tension in Cyprus, where at the weekend a Greek Cypriot was tragically shot by Turkish forces? Has she taken that into account when designating Cyprus as a safe country?
Miss Widdecombe:
I repeat yet again that every individual case is considered on its merits. The fact that a country has been designated does not mean that people who claim that they are victims of circumstances--whether circumstances that were known to us when we designated the country concerned or any subsequent circumstances--will not still have the full right to have their cases individually and thoroughly considered. If we did any less, we would be in breach of our obligations under the Geneva convention.
Mr. John Fraser (Norwood):
Will the Minister give way?
Miss Widdecombe:
I will give way once more only.
Mr. Fraser:
Is the Minister aware that the constitution of Pakistan contains provisions which stigmatise Ahmadis and condemn them to long periods of imprisonment simply for claiming that they are Muslims, and that laws against Christians are enshrined in the constitution of Pakistan? How can one say that a country is generally
"in general no serious risk of persecution",
15 Oct 1996 : Column 694
are to be taken to mean that, for some people, the Government accept that there is a risk of persecution? If not, what other meaning are we to ascribe to the introduction of the words "in general"?
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |